Gun Violence Task Force Calls For Research, Parental Tools

[TechNoFear]

that clause is not vague by any stretch of the imagination, look at the times the people that wrote the clause lived in,

You missed my point; that the 2nd amendment is legally vauge and irrelevent (in our time and technology).

It has limits (NFA, FOPA, etc) but no one is clear as to exactly what those limits are (eg Heller vs DC).

you surfboard argument is silly

That was the point....

because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime,

No they don't.

The 2011 FBI UCR shows ~68% of homicides, ~41% of robberies and ~50% of suicides (CDC 2010) involve firearms.

The only category of violent crime where firearms are not the most 'popular' is assault (~21% firearm / ~52% other weapon). Note that often assaults with a firearm are considered attempted murder (or become murder).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-21
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/robbery-table-3
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm


Please note I am not an American and could care less how frequently you shoot each other, but your argument was clearly a false equivalency.

 

[Something Amyss]

100,000 prescription drug deaths yea guns are a crisis in this nation, keep pounding that whole epidemic thing till people believe it,

Or we can belittle it with false analogies to another group where safety measures are taken, blame isn't falsely spread, and deaths actually are taken seriously.

 

[Something Amyss]

you surfboard argument is silly because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime

Okay, prove that one. Even Fox and Breitbart didn't go that far, and they already lied about the contents of the statistics they purported.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

How about those mongrels start researching the most obvious reason? Parenting or better to say the lack of parenting? Even if games cause violence, they are rated with an motherfucking M and kids can't buy it. So it's obvious that the parents buy those games for the kids. So it's not a games fault, it's the parents fault. Same as if a parent bought cigarettes, alcohol or guns for his kid. It's no the cigarettes', alcohol's or gun's fault. It's the parents fault for buying and giving something that isn't for kids to the kids.

 

[Jamous]

This is absolutely absurd. Give them tools to control what their kids play etc.? THEY HAVE THE TOOLS. THEY ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY THE ONES BUYING THE 18-RATED GAMES! If you don't want your kids to play violent video games, don't buy them for them and ensure they don't have the means to buy them themselves.

 

[1337mokro]

How can you tell apart someone who wants to conduct science and someone who wants to further their agenda?

When you ask the scientist what he thinks about videogame induced violence according to all the studies done he will answer the following.

"There have been extensive tests in the past that have shown no or negligible results in increased violence, or have shown other sources to be higher causes of increased violence that nobody seems to pay attention to. If people want to continue researching this field they should rethink their testing methodology because at this stage a similar test that DOES show an increase in violence is more likely going to be doctored or faulty when in previous tests in the same method there was shown no significant increase."

When you ask a someone with an agenda:

"We just have to continue doing these tests until we have sufficient results that videogames do increase violence. It is having an effect on our children that we are ignoring just because there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrates it. That is why we need more of these tests so we can gather more data and find the tests that do show an increase in violence."

One supposes a result that has to be proven correct, the other lets the results speak loudest.

 

[cidbahamut]

"The entertainment and videogame industries have a responsibility to give parents the tools to make appropriate choices about what their children watch and play..."

READ THE FREAKING LABEL ON THE BOX DAMN IT!

Seriously it takes you less than a second to look at the bottom right hand corner of the box to see the ESRB rating for a game. The parents have almost unlimited resource to research about any game their child wants to play.

I cannot overstate my agreement with this assessment.

The tools are already there and piss easy to use. If parents refuse to use them then that's not an issue the game industry has to deal with.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[Tsaba]

Oh boy, next they'll want to outlaw violent video games, maybe make us watch 10 minutes of sunshine and rainbows for every minute of violence.

If they can't enforce the current laws, then what's the point of punishing those who aren't the "dangerous, mentally ill, and criminally motivated" type of people? If I want to have a firearm to defend myself for the upcoming zombie outbreak, then I should be allowed to own one. Good luck England, seriously, you guys are hosed.... you too Australia.

 

[Doom972]

Why is it that when research results don't fit the expectations, more research is needed? There's no connection, so why waste resources on this?

Maybe it's time to put some research into gun control, effective law enforcement, or security in schools?

 

[cerebus23]

you surfboard argument is silly because by the fbis own statistics baseball bats and knives lead guns in random violent crime

Okay, prove that one. Even Fox and Breitbart didn't go that far, and they already lied about the contents of the statistics they purported.

"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."

did not take me long to find numerous discussions on it, the actual fbi pages, when they organize them better then i will dig through them.

but it is not a hard common sense thing to assume really that anything that would be more handy when people get peeved would be more commonly used in violent assaults than guns, since contrary to popular myth over across the pond apparently where we are all armed and ready to shoot each other every waking minute of every day.

fun facts.

we have a population of about 313 million people.

28,000 miles of atlantic coastline, 17,000 miles of gulf coastline, 40,000 miles pacific coastline, 2,000 miles arctic coastline for a grand total of just shy of 89,000 miles of coast.

we have about a 4,000 mile border with canada. and just shy of 2,000 mile border with mexico.

we have 50 states many are the size of your average european nation or larger in actual area. you can travel across several nations in europe in the time you cross between states here.

we can just toss out there that waving your hands and saying something is bad and making it illegal, which turns a good chunk of your former law abiding citizens into criminals overnight because you wish it so does not get rid of anything.

go research our war on drugs and the cost in lives and helping spread hatred is the USA in s america and places that we turn into war zones because of our appetites for drugs.

you want to do the math or a "cost benefit analysis" on the amount of guns and the explosion of a full blow black market in guns in this nation, how quickly those lines of marijuana and cocain distribution can easily swap out cartons of ak47s and uzis when there is enough money in it.

no you seem far more intent on dismissing any argument that dares challenge your rather limited view of issues.

and again piling more laws and more regulation and more government on top when we already have laws that made everything this guy did ILLEGAL already.......really 313 million people and 1 person shoots 26 kids in a school because he is crazy......and we have a epidemic....and we have people so riled up about this f it, lets get rid of guns they are barbaric and childish, lets get rid of videogames they are barbaric and childish murder simulators. because on the action of ONE solitary madman.

*FACEPALM*

the vast majority of gun owners in america are rational law abiding citizens that never fire a gun at another person in their entire lives, way some of you talk it is still the wild west up in here, and oddly enough these really bad shootings seem to happen in anti gun zones or states wow go figure. see how chicago fares under its anti gun environment in a pro gun nation.

 

[Lieju]

The only "tool" parents need is the word, "No." Parents, learn to say it to your kids when they want something, no matter how much they ***** and whine and call you the worst mother/father ever.

Yes, although there's still the Internet (the kids often are more tech-savvy than their parents), and of course the kids can get their hands on forbidden stuff if they have friends who have parents who either don't care or have different standards.

Of course there's also the risk that the kids come in contact with guns that way. Even if you're very careful, or don't have guns, who's to say your neighbours are the same?

 

[Cid Silverwing]

We have 20+ years of solid evidence that games never have and never will cause violence, and they ask for research?

This is as fucking despicably dishonest as you can get without directly asking for it. Fucking stop banging on about the question and actually get to the part where you figure out the REAL reasons why shootings happen.

For fuck's sake.

 

[Biodeamon]

It's too bad that the people funding the research on gun control are the gun lobbies and manufacturers.

 

[LordMonty]

I'm English, and can you guess how many people were killed with guns in the city of Plymouth England this week? none! yup thats right not a sausage. Heck had to serch the net and found only one case back in October 2011, terrible still but in that case the man even lived.

So yes we may get more inventive without guns in the UK knives, kittens and the odd Ukulele hell the SAS ain't feared for nothing, but joking aside people still die! Comit suidie with other methods, i think the Tamar bridge(plymouth again) is the 3rd most popular suiside spot nation wide (but don't quote me on that) so no guns can't be blamed for all the US's worries - people can make bombs from house hold goods if they really want to cause death.

I'll get to my point now. I'm trying to say in the middle but i'll be honest I don't really like guns. The one thing i'll say is simply people have killed people since the dawn of human civilisation why and how is a matter for each case but the point is in a civil and forward thinking society all we can do is make it as hard as possible to harm another human being and guns i'm afraid to say do the exact opotiste if they're sold in freely
Its instant death(yes I know not always but more so than most methods) not a punch or a wild slash and the same logic for most suisides as they have to be planed and thought over which hopefully saves a few who get help before they can go through with it.

Life is important and even with this being blown out of proportions and becoming a witch hunt against games and movies the point stands in the long run something should be done! Not sure what as I saw a figure on how many guns are in the US in general and there is no way to retroactively get rid of them all in a day or even reduce them by any major amount without the support of the people and the US loves its guns and i'm not going to tell you what to do but remeber every life matters and saving a few by reducing deaths by guns would be nice right?

Keep well and be civil and troll away if you must i've said my quiet peace.

 

[Farther than stars]

There's only one thing that will significantly save lives and that is a full ban on guns, all guns, even and especially handguns. That is the only way to get those stats down. But considering that a majority of Congress is Republican and another majority is in good standing with the NRA, a ban on the second amendment isn't going to happen any time soon.

100,000 prescription drug deaths yea guns are a crisis in this nation, keep pounding that whole epidemic thing till people believe it,

This isn't a purely numerical issue. There's a moral aspect to be considered. Yes, the damage that prescription drugs do is bad, but pretty much every culture, government and religion worldwide agrees that murder is the one crime that must be avoided above all else. Not least because it concerns one individual exerting force over another against their will. And whether or not (hand)guns are legal plays a big part in that murder rate, as the U.S. exemplifies. That is why guns deserve special attention and not just because they cause a certain number of deaths.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Reaching for more control over population. The more they squeeze, the more people will slip through their fingers. And then, when the laws ban everything worth doing (they won't stop at guns, games or books... power grabs are all-or-nothing responses, like muscle contractions) then the general population will either be propagandized sheep or those on the outside fighting for freedom.
Freedom isn't just about having guns, but being allowed to make our own choices and have our own responsibilities. If we as people can't be trusted to own guns, neither should the government because THEY ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE!

 

[Something Amyss]

"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."

Too bad you were already debunked before you quoted me. And your quote doesn't back up your claim.

Wouldn't it be easier to just concede the argument, rather than doubling down on something someone else already cited as false?

 

[Something Amyss]

There's only one thing that will significantly save lives and that is a full ban on guns, all guns, even and especially handguns. That is the only way to get those stats down. But considering that a majority of Congress is Republican and another majority is in good standing with the NRA, a ban on the second amendment isn't going to happen any time soon.

It doesn't hurt that nobody's actually going to proclaim the desire to ban all guns.

I disagree with your premise, however. Banning guns is unnecessary. Well, let me rephrase. "Banning guns is not necessary to significantly save lives. Common sense gun control is sufficient to do that."

It's a shame the NRA opposes even the softest gun control, especially since their own membership supports most/all of the tenets of say, Obama's gun control policy. Whether you think Obama's gun control goes far enough, the fact is that if you propose it without Obama's name, it gets majority support in this country. Even among NRA members.

This isn't a purely numerical issue. There's a moral aspect to be considered. Yes, the damage that prescription drugs do is bad, but pretty much every culture, government and religion worldwide agrees that murder is the one crime that must be avoided above all else. Not least because it concerns one individual exerting force over another against their will. And whether or not (hand)guns are legal plays a big part in that murder rate, as the U.S. exemplifies. That is why guns deserve special attention and not just because they cause a certain number of deaths.

He sounds an awful lot like the pharmacological conspiracy theorists who think that big pharma is preventing us from acting on such deaths.

The biggest problem here is that we already take common sense measures with medication. It's funny that people whoare generally anti-nanny state are so concerned with drug deaths that largely come down to end-user issues. Aspirin is oe of the most quoted ones, and the reason people die from aspirin is that despite numerous warnings on all aspirin products, people take products containing aspirin like candy. Avandia was one of the big drugs that got a Congressional hearing, and the problem with it was actually a known issue: heart failure. Thing is, the heart failure issue was specifically for people doctors should have been screening out in the first place.

It's funny how nobody complains about knee-jerking with pharmaceuticals.

Pharmaceutical deaths are also accounted for by suicide, which we are supposed to ignore with firearms, and cases where the risk of death is known but considered acceptable due to the level of suffering experienced. I can't remember which arthritis drug was pulled off the market in another kneejerk, but the users of the drug protested loudly that this was a drug that gave them their lives back, and it was worth risking a shorter life span.

Which circles right back to the statement of a moral issue. So yeah, I agree, but I think there's more to it than just that. I think there's also bad mathematics and gross hypocrisy.

Edited to add: I guess part of my point here is that if firearms were regulated even half as strongly as pharmaceuticals, we might actually see some progress. Ironically, we're looking at someone who is complaining that a more heavily regulated market should be the target because...Well, ponies I assume.

 

[Tom_green_day]

To be fair, the ratings groups can be indecisive at times. XCom Enemy Unknown received a 12 from the BBFC, 16 from the USK and 18 from PEGI. Thanks guys.

 

[TechNoFear]

"According to the FBI, the majority of violent crimes are aggravated assaults, and the majority of aggravated assaults involve knives, fists, bats and other weapons aside from guns."

did not take me long to find numerous discussions on it, the actual fbi pages,

No, 'common' or 'simple' assault is the most frequent violent crime.

Aggravated assault involves a weapon, simple assault does not (and is more common).

Firearms are MUCH more deadlier than cutting or bashing weapons.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/

BTW you are redefining what you said, in an attempt to make you statement appear more credible.

when they organize them better then i will dig through them.

Funny, I have no trouble finding the data I required to rebut your argument and link you to the data.

As the saying goes, a poor workman blames his tools....

we have 50 states many are the size of your average european nation or larger in actual area.

I come from a country that has a state over 4 times larger than Texas, with a population under 2 mill and over 14,000 kms of empty coastline.

It has national parks bigger than some EU countries and US states. It takes approx 2 days to drive from one end to the other (of just that one state).

So fucking what?

no you seem far more intent on dismissing any argument that dares challenge your rather limited view of issues.

Actually my intent is to rebutt illogical, ill-conceived arguments with no basis in fact and no supporting evidence supplied by the poster....

the vast majority of gun owners in america are rational law abiding citizens that never fire a gun at another person in their entire lives,

And the vast majority of people who take perscription drugs will never over-dose and die from them, yet you used it as an argument against firearm controls. You can't have it both ways....

BTW Try searching those links I provided for the relationship between homicide victim and offender, they will show that over 25% of homicides are by one of your own family members / spouse.